Very Low Light Photography Pointers

[Stringent]

Any pointers (or bed time reading) on very low light photography? Went to a festive 'turn on the lights' event on Saturday. Despite my D90 being loaded with my 35mm f1.8, getting anything decent was suffice it to say, not gonna happen. Hate using flash but I guess I am going to have to more in these situations. Struck up a convo with one of the press photographers there. He didn't seem interested in letting me try out his stuff! :)

BTW no my camera wasn't on auto, was on M or S and me fiddling a lot. Anything above ISO 1000 I noticed the grain. As there was a lot of movement, animals and people it was just frustrating getting the exposure right.

On the upside got to see Alex Zane (never heard of him) and a brief glimpse of Geri Halliwell!

[kalniel]

It depends on your sensor characteristics. Most older sensors aren't good for shadow noise, so if you can expose to the right a bit and then bring down in post you can sometimes get away with more, but that's only where that gives an advantage over dropping ISO a step for the same exposure (on my camera it's noticeably better to expose to the right at ISO 1250 rather than dropping down to ISO 1000 for eg.)

So practically, aperture priority + positive exposure compensation and auto ISO if you've got a good and customisable auto-ISO mode, or just set ISO at your highest tolerable level. If concerned about movement then I guess manual (wide open, longest tolerable shutter speed) + auto ISO + positive exposure compensation would be your best bet.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

If you cannot upgrade your camera,have you tried using a monopod? AFAIK,your lens lacks stabilisation too.

[Stringent]

The lens I had was this one

http://www.europe-nikon.com/en_GB/pr...or-35mm-f-1-8g

Have a monopod, completely forgot. Could have doubled up as a stick to beat people out my way.

VR lens then recommended? (Christmas coming up!)

Will try that next time Kalniel thanks.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

The lens I had was this one

http://www.europe-nikon.com/en_GB/pr...or-35mm-f-1-8g

Have a monopod, completely forgot. Could have doubled up as a stick to beat people out my way.

VR lens then recommended? (Christmas coming up!)

Will try that next time Kalniel thanks.

You might need to look at an independent lens maker,and see if they have any wide aperture lenses with VR.

In fact this is one of the advantages other companies have,especially if you are on a budget,as they have VR in the body meaning all lenses are stabilised.

I would use the monopod as you already have it and you can get away with a lower shutter speed too.

[kalniel]

The lens I had was this one

http://www.europe-nikon.com/en_GB/pr...or-35mm-f-1-8g

Have a monopod, completely forgot. Could have doubled up as a stick to beat people out my way.

VR lens then recommended? (Christmas coming up!)

Will try that next time Kalniel thanks.

If your shutter speed is limited by subject movement then neither a 'pod or VR will help unfortunately - if the subject is slow however then they can help you avoid camera movement blur. Though I don't know if you can find a VR lens as bright as 1.8, so anything you've 'gained' from VR you've probably lost by using a darker lens.

[Stringent]

Thanks all so far. Next time monopod and SB-600 will be loaded. Was trying to get away with carrying a lot of gear.

[TheAnimus]

Was trying to get away with carrying a lot of gear.

Its when travelling I really notice how bad most cameras are at low light. Even when I've nabbed the girlfriends collection of primes (I really love the f1.8 lims, but at £800 a pop not *that* much) I find that certain events just have so little light, our eye makes un-realistic images for us to expect from a camera.

Without going in to rods and cones, the human eye is just wounderful, our cameras are not. This post is probably of little help for solutions btw.

The main thing is we are comparing constantly processed images (which removes 'shutter lag') where we change focus and don't notice the noise, with a one off image. So whilst I know I will get flamed for this, I think the problem is people immediately say too much noise, I need a better bigger sensor camera.

No.

The main issue is the amount of light available for the sensor and the DoF that appears.

So with my k5 which has excellent low light performance, a brilliant limited edition prime lens, I still have to shoot at f3.5 or higher. Then with the need for a shutter speed before I know it I'm snapping at 1600 ISO, having to really ramp the contrast down.

What is funny with this I also had on my person a Pentax Q, this tiny camera, with a fast prime lens on has a much better DoF due to the small sensor size. The upshot is you can walk round shooting at f1.2 and you've probably too much DoF, however all of a sudden you can have a nice 1/20th second shot, easily hand held at 200 ISO.

Say what you like about noisy sensors, but the fact I can capture what would be well over 1,600 ISO at 200 ISO the crappy small sensor wins, easily.

Obviously I'm not saying go buy a £250 digital camera and plastic lenses, just there is this horrible attitude your not a 'pro' unless you've got a full frame. I used to think exactly that way too, my grandfarthers influence. But it makes no sense, why full frame is the requirement for 'pro' not medium format? etc.

I'll try and get some time later to put some images up, the game will be guess what was the £2.5k set up, what was the £250 setup.

*Worth mentioning the event I'm thinking of most in my mind was a lantern festival, no streetlights only the moon, so it was very dark.

[kalniel]

What is funny with this I also had on my person a Pentax Q, this tiny camera, with a fast prime lens on has a much better DoF due to the small sensor size. The upshot is you can walk round shooting at f1.2 and you've probably too much DoF, however all of a sudden you can have a nice 1/20th second shot, easily hand held at 200 ISO.

But that 200 ISO will be at roughly as noisy as the equivalent ISO from a bigger sensor shooting at the same shutter speed and equivalent aperture for the same DoF. You can't avoid the physics. Eg. take an ISO 200 f/2 shot by a sensor size 1/4 of full frame (ie 4/3rds) then the equivalent aperture for DoF for full frame is f/4 (two stops lower), to get the same shutter speed you have to up ISO two stops to 800. The noise across the whole sensor for both will be the same at 800 ISO for the FF as it is at 200 ISO for the 4/3rds.

However, it is quite possible the smaller camera has better software noise reduction algorithms (and being a smaller sensor, the electronics could be less noise creating etc.)

And at the end of the day, noise isn't such a detriment to pictures anyway. People lambast the 4/3rds sensor cameras for their noise performance, but I find performance at ISO 1250 to be great, without even needing noise reduction sometimes (if resizing for eg.).

Below is an example ISO 1250 shot from my E-620. I was just messing around, but it would be quite printable to a fairly large size as noise also doesn't affect print all that much.

[Bobster]

1/400 is not low light - majority of cameras will give you great results at high ISO in good light..

TBH D90 - crank it to the highest ISO and forget about the noise..

monopod will not help you freeze motion - only flash (with ambient killed) or high shutter speeds will do that..

[kalniel]

1/400 is not low light - majority of cameras will give you great results at high ISO in good light..

It was just an example. Is this one low light enough?

[TheAnimus]

But that 200 ISO will be at roughly as noisy as the equivalent ISO from a bigger sensor shooting at the same shutter speed and equivalent aperture for the same DoF. You can't avoid the physics. Eg. take an ISO 200 f/2 shot by a sensor size 1/4 of full frame (ie 4/3rds) then the equivalent aperture for DoF for full frame is f/4 (two stops lower), to get the same shutter speed you have to up ISO two stops to 800. The noise across the whole sensor for both will be the same at 800 ISO for the FF as it is at 200 ISO for the 4/3rds.

There problem there is you assuming that a pentax Q sensor at 200 ISO (which IIRC is native) is worse than a APC-S at 800, or 1600, or 3200. The sensors simply don't work like that. In fact smaller sensors often have less noise due to some circumstances, they just have more due to the whole SNR ratio issue of how much light coming in.

In fact the biggest issue something like the Q has is the quality of the cheapo plastic lens.

[TheAnimus]

It was just an example. Is this one low light enough?

Now that is a good point. Shutter speed and low light.

What is the probability and the distribution of a "noise event".

By this I mean what creates a pixel to become noisy. To do this more we have to talk about how a CMOS sensor works, which I'd love to do, but I've had a great dinner and some rather nice wine n cognac (gave some great advice on making a friend put a stop order on some Apple at 700!). So maybe if I'm bored and unable to work I'll do this tomorrow.

Until then, basically its a no. A bad sensor will gather more noise the longer its active for, but often its not as much as been charged in the first place.

So a 1/40 photo is just as valid as a 1/400.

[TheAnimus]

OK, added some examples
http://sdrv.ms/QqlowX

Notice the amount of noise on the 3200, which has had the standard noise be gone process. Nothing on the Q.

Now this was the best I could come up with, as normally I have either the Q or the K5. I've a good friend in Vietnam who likes to borrow a camera, thou next time I'm back he'll have his own. I digress.

Anyway, hopefully despite the difference in zoom levels used, you can really see the noise on the k5 picture, the tricky dry ice smoke shows it.

The other issue is the light is not constant. It was darker in the Q picture IIRC.

[kalniel]

Until then, basically its a no.

No it's not low light enough? In which case are you saying we should only worry about noise for astro photography or something? I can't think of wanting to take photos in much lower light than my example otherwise.

Or no, bobster is wrong in saying my first photo was only clean because it was a normal light and thus high shutter speed at high ISO?

As I've been saying, I don't usually have a problem with noise myself, despite being on a system people like to deride as noisy because of the slightly smaller sensor. But aside from the tips already mentioned, another factor is I generally shoot in natural light, and even in candlelight the white balance sensor/processing doesn't try to push it to a natural light looking scene. A big problem with indoor shots is that normal artificial lighting is very 'warm' coloured, so to create a natural looking shot cameras have to boost the blue channel a lot more than other colours, which can result in noise appearing, especially in shadows. Natural light and good sharpness go a long way to making noise relatively un-distracting.

I hate shooting under artificial light. If I have to do it, I'll get a decent flashgun.

[TheAnimus]

Or no, bobster is wrong in saying my first photo was only clean because it was a normal light and thus high shutter speed at high ISO?

This one.

Wasn't quite clear.

Basically I was saying your example is fine, it doesn't matter it was 1/400.